Author
Topic: Full of Grace & Immaculate conception (Read 1807 times)

Sorry if this topic has already been discussed. The whole day I was looking in old threads to find some discussion / information on this. But could not.

I read an article today about Immaculate conception from a Roman perspective. A few doubts..

1. When do the Orthodox believe sanctification happened ? Any Patristic support on the Orthodox view ?

2. Does the salutation "Full of Grace" support IC ? The Roman argument was " Angel called Mary Hail Full of GRACE. The Greek word denotes that the completed action still continues...this is what we believe God preserved Mary from all kinds of Sin by the merit of His SON...this happened the moment she came in to existence...the moment of conception....this is when a person start to have existence....Gods grace preserved Mary from all kind f SINS." ... Is it a right interpretation ?

3. There was a quote from St. John Damascene provided in support of IC "" O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew." .. Did St. John support IC ? If not, how do Orthodox interpret the above quote ?

Thank you very much for clearing up my doubts. If anyone can point out to any specific thread where this has been discussed previously, it would also be a great help.

Thank you. Aloho n' barek !

Logged

"He became what we are so that he might make us what he is." — St. Athanasius of Alexandria

Sorry if this topic has already been discussed. The whole day I was looking in old threads to find some discussion / information on this. But could not.

I read an article today about Immaculate conception from a Roman perspective. A few doubts..

1. When do the Orthodox believe sanctification happened ? Any Patristic support on the Orthodox view ?

2. Does the salutation "Full of Grace" support IC ? The Roman argument was " Angel called Mary Hail Full of GRACE. The Greek word denotes that the completed action still continues...this is what we believe God preserved Mary from all kinds of Sin by the merit of His SON...this happened the moment she came in to existence...the moment of conception....this is when a person start to have existence....Gods grace preserved Mary from all kind f SINS." ... Is it a right interpretation ?

3. There was a quote from St. John Damascene provided in support of IC "" O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew." .. Did St. John support IC ? If not, how do Orthodox interpret the above quote ?

Thank you very much for clearing up my doubts. If anyone can point out to any specific thread where this has been discussed previously, it would also be a great help.

Thank you. Aloho n' barek !

1. I don't have any sources at the moment but IIRC, I've been taught the sanctification happened at the Annunciation/Conception.

2. I think we Orthodox would say the moment of the Conception of her Son, not her own.

3. I'll leave the quote from John Damascene to my EO friends to answer, as he is one of their saint's, not ours.

A problem that the Orthodox have with the teaching that the Mother of God was preserved from original sin, as likewise the teaching that She was preserved by God’s grace from personal sins, makes God unmerciful and unjust because if God could preserve Mary from sin and purify Her before Her birth, then why does He not purify other people before their birth, but rather leaves them in sin? Also, the Orthodox do not go along with that God saves people apart from their will, predetermining certain ones before their birth to salvation.

But the biggest problem is that if Mary were not human but some sort of supper human then Christ was not fully God and fully man, but something else.

A problem that the Orthodox have with the teaching that the Mother of God was preserved from original sin, as likewise the teaching that She was preserved by God’s grace from personal sins, makes God unmerciful and unjust because if God could preserve Mary from sin and purify Her before Her birth, then why does He not purify other people before their birth, but rather leaves them in sin? Also, the Orthodox do not go along with that God saves people apart from their will, predetermining certain ones before their birth to salvation.

But the biggest problem is that if Mary were not human but some sort of supper human then Christ was not fully God and fully man, but something else.

When Adam was created he was made of the earth, an earth which had not been cursed yet with sin. Eve his wife was made from the earth, out of a rib from the side of Adam. They were not super human, but fully human and free from all stain of sin.

Christ is the new Adam, made from substance free from sin (the Flesh of the Immaculate Virgin Mary). Please consider that Eve and Adam were both made free from sin, and that Catholics are in effect saying that Jesus our Lord and Our Blessed Lady being the new Adam and the new Eve received the same privelage that God had bestowed upon humanity with our first parents.

Catholics are in effect saying that Jesus our Lord and Our Blessed Lady being the new Adam and the new Eve received the same privelage that God had bestowed upon humanity with our first parents.

Which puts the lie to Christ's redemption of humanity by becoming incarnate. If the Virgin was immaculately conceived, then the flesh that Christ acquired from her did not need to be redeemed, as it was perfect to begin with.

Catholics are in effect saying that Jesus our Lord and Our Blessed Lady being the new Adam and the new Eve received the same privelage that God had bestowed upon humanity with our first parents.

Which puts the lie to Christ's redemption of humanity by becoming incarnate. If the Virgin was immaculately conceived, then the flesh that Christ acquired from her did not need to be redeemed, as it was perfect to begin with.

I was under the impression that Catholics believe that original sin is passed on through propagation, whereas the Orthodox do not. It seems that, especially when reading St. Athanasius, it is inherent in humanity in general (in the universal-property/substance sense of the term), and not only in organic humanity.

That said, it still causes problems:

1) It was only through uniting humanity with the divinity in Christ that humanity, which we all share, is cleansed. How is that the Virgin is the sole exception to this necessity, and why was the rest of humanity not cleansed likewise?

2) If the Theotokos' sparing of corruption occured during her birth, then doesn't that mean this cleansing of her humanity happened irresistibly by God's grace? (I.e. raises a problem of free will and synergy)

3) If humanity as a property is a universal, and it is corrupted as a universal, then how can one person sharing this property be cleansed while the property itself is corrupted?

Catholics are in effect saying that Jesus our Lord and Our Blessed Lady being the new Adam and the new Eve received the same privelage that God had bestowed upon humanity with our first parents.

Which puts the lie to Christ's redemption of humanity by becoming incarnate. If the Virgin was immaculately conceived, then the flesh that Christ acquired from her did not need to be redeemed, as it was perfect to begin with.

I was under the impression that Catholics believe that original sin is passed on through propagation, whereas the Orthodox do not. It seems that, especially when reading St. Athanasius, it is inherent in humanity in general (in the universal-property/substance sense of the term), and not only in organic humanity.

That said, it still causes problems:

1) It was only through uniting humanity with the divinity in Christ that humanity, which we all share, is cleansed. How is that the Virgin is the sole exception to this necessity, and why was the rest of humanity not cleansed likewise?

2) If the Theotokos' sparing of corruption occured during her birth, then doesn't that mean this cleansing of her humanity happened irresistibly by God's grace? (I.e. raises a problem of free will and synergy)

3) If humanity as a property is a universal, and it is corrupted as a universal, then how can one person sharing this property be cleansed while the property itself is corrupted?

1) Because she has the singular privelage of being the Mother of God.2) It does not raise the problem of Free will, Adam and Eve were not deprived of there free will being made free from sin.3) I don't get your question? Could you clarify.

Catholics are in effect saying that Jesus our Lord and Our Blessed Lady being the new Adam and the new Eve received the same privelage that God had bestowed upon humanity with our first parents.

Which puts the lie to Christ's redemption of humanity by becoming incarnate. If the Virgin was immaculately conceived, then the flesh that Christ acquired from her did not need to be redeemed, as it was perfect to begin with.

It is the Catholic teaching that Our Blessed Mothers Immaculate Conception was only made possible by the merits of Jesus Christ.

" that Mary, the most holy Mother of God, by virtue of the foreseen merits of Christ, our Lord and Redeemer, was never subject to original sin, but was completely preserved from the original taint, and hence she was redeemed in a manner more sublime" Ineffabilis Deus, Blessed Pope Pius IX

Then the rest of humanity could've likewise been cleansed from the corruption of original sin without the necessity of Christ becoming incarnate.

Quote

2) It does not raise the problem of Free will, Adam and Eve were not deprived of there free will being made free from sin.

Except they were simply created "human," which at the time did not necessarily entail corruption/sin as it would come to. However, this case of Adam and Even is not the same as the Virgin's, who was born into a world with only corrupt humanity, but was herself saved from this corruption without the participation of her will. She was not merely made, as Adam/Even were.

Quote

3) I don't get your question? Could you clarify.

It's more metaphysical than anything, and has to do with properties. It's not really worth getting into as I'm not sure how I feel about it entirely mself. In retrospect I shouldn't have included it.

Catholics are in effect saying that Jesus our Lord and Our Blessed Lady being the new Adam and the new Eve received the same privelage that God had bestowed upon humanity with our first parents.

Which puts the lie to Christ's redemption of humanity by becoming incarnate. If the Virgin was immaculately conceived, then the flesh that Christ acquired from her did not need to be redeemed, as it was perfect to begin with.

I was under the impression that Catholics believe that original sin is passed on through propagation, whereas the Orthodox do not. It seems that, especially when reading St. Athanasius, it is inherent in humanity in general (in the universal-property/substance sense of the term), and not only in organic humanity.

That said, it still causes problems:

1) It was only through uniting humanity with the divinity in Christ that humanity, which we all share, is cleansed. How is that the Virgin is the sole exception to this necessity, and why was the rest of humanity not cleansed likewise?

2) If the Theotokos' sparing of corruption occured during her birth, then doesn't that mean this cleansing of her humanity happened irresistibly by God's grace? (I.e. raises a problem of free will and synergy)

3) If humanity as a property is a universal, and it is corrupted as a universal, then how can one person sharing this property be cleansed while the property itself is corrupted?

And this is where the difference between east (corruption of nature) and west (deprivation of grace) causes things to fall apart.

The undivided Church then, and the Orthodox Church now, has chugged along quite nicely without it. At best, it's unnecessary; at worst, it distorts the teachings on the Incarnation and of Christ's redemption of mankind.

2. Does the salutation "Full of Grace" support IC ? The Roman argument was " Angel called Mary Hail Full of GRACE. The Greek word denotes that the completed action still continues...this is what we believe God preserved Mary from all kinds of Sin by the merit of His SON...this happened the moment she came in to existence...the moment of conception....this is when a person start to have existence....Gods grace preserved Mary from all kind f SINS." ... Is it a right interpretation ?

"Full of Grace" does not directly pertain to the IC. It is fine to say that God's grace enabled the Virgin to be sinless and live a righteous life, and it's fine to say that she is indeed full of grace. However, neither of these mean she was immaculately conceived or not. I don't honestly see the connection between the two.

Quote

3. There was a quote from St. John Damascene provided in support of IC "" O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew." .. Did St. John support IC ? If not, how do Orthodox interpret the above quote ?

I've never seen this quote before, but I could see both sides of interpreting it. I'd be inclined to say that St. John is just emphasizing the Virgin's holiness and blessedness even upon conception. It says nothing of the sort that God guarded her conception from original sin, but only that the seed was spotless and that the offspring was holy which isn't exactly precise. IMO, it's a bit too much to place the IC into this quote unless there's more to the context or if St. John elaborates elsewhere.

Catholics are in effect saying that Jesus our Lord and Our Blessed Lady being the new Adam and the new Eve received the same privelage that God had bestowed upon humanity with our first parents.

Which puts the lie to Christ's redemption of humanity by becoming incarnate. If the Virgin was immaculately conceived, then the flesh that Christ acquired from her did not need to be redeemed, as it was perfect to begin with.

It is the Catholic teaching that Our Blessed Mothers Immaculate Conception was only made possible by the merits of Jesus Christ.

" that Mary, the most holy Mother of God, by virtue of the foreseen merits of Christ, our Lord and Redeemer, was never subject to original sin, but was completely preserved from the original taint, and hence she was redeemed in a manner more sublime" Ineffabilis Deus, Blessed Pope Pius IX

Sorry, God doesn't use the way back machine. If He did, He would have brought Adam and Eve right back to Paradise "by virute of the foreseen merits of Chirst."

Christ had to take human nature to redeem human nature from ancestral sin. No skipping of steps.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Right...but it sounded like ialmisry was suggesting that God could not have saved the Mother of God in an extraordinary way by bypassing time, which makes it sound as if God is bound by time.

Time is an aspect of our physical universe. God is beyond that. Whether God can time travel in the way we understand time travel, we do not know. There is no evidence for that in Scripture. It is easy to say "yes" because we know that God has no limits. I think the only teaching that comes close is God's ever presence, is that He is present equally at all points of time. So yesterday, today, and tomorrow are the same to God. Because He is all knowing, He knows what is happening 1000 years from now, 1000 years ago. And He right at this moment is there 1000 years from now as He is here right now. Time travel I think is counter to God's nature then because it would mean that He goes from one time to the next, leaving one time therefore He is not present in that time. But He is present in all times all the time.

This RC concept of time travel for the IC is a modern interpretation to the belief which I believe just came about because of sci-fi stories on time travel. The original dogmatic definition of the IC does not even mention any concept of time travel.

Right...but it sounded like ialmisry was suggesting that God could not have saved the Mother of God in an extraordinary way by bypassing time, which makes it sound as if God is bound by time.

Time is an aspect of our physical universe. God is beyond that. Whether God can time travel in the way we understand time travel, we do not know. There is no evidence for that in Scripture. It is easy to say "yes" because we know that God has no limits. I think the only teaching that comes close is God's ever presence, is that He is present equally at all points of time. So yesterday, today, and tomorrow are the same to God. Because He is all knowing, He knows what is happening 1000 years from now, 1000 years ago. And He right at this moment is there 1000 years from now as He is here right now. Time travel I think is counter to God's nature then because it would mean that He goes from one time to the next, leaving one time therefore He is not present in that time. But He is present in all times all the time.

This RC concept of time travel for the IC is a modern interpretation to the belief which I believe just came about because of sci-fi stories on time travel. The original dogmatic definition of the IC does not even mention any concept of time travel.

I've never, ever come across the phrase OR concept of "time travel" with respect to the IC. Whose goofy idea is *that*?

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

Right...but it sounded like ialmisry was suggesting that God could not have saved the Mother of God in an extraordinary way by bypassing time, which makes it sound as if God is bound by time.

Time is an aspect of our physical universe. God is beyond that. Whether God can time travel in the way we understand time travel, we do not know. There is no evidence for that in Scripture. It is easy to say "yes" because we know that God has no limits. I think the only teaching that comes close is God's ever presence, is that He is present equally at all points of time. So yesterday, today, and tomorrow are the same to God. Because He is all knowing, He knows what is happening 1000 years from now, 1000 years ago. And He right at this moment is there 1000 years from now as He is here right now. Time travel I think is counter to God's nature then because it would mean that He goes from one time to the next, leaving one time therefore He is not present in that time. But He is present in all times all the time.

This RC concept of time travel for the IC is a modern interpretation to the belief which I believe just came about because of sci-fi stories on time travel. The original dogmatic definition of the IC does not even mention any concept of time travel.

I think using the term "time travel" in reference to God is a bit misleading. I've heard that God exists in the eternal now, which means that all times and places are always present to God.

I've never, ever come across the phrase OR concept of "time travel" with respect to the IC. Whose goofy idea is *that*?

I have no idea, but it is a popular concept among lay wanna-be apologists today. The compounding issue here is they believe that the IC has already saved Mary because of her purity from sin and thus would have been assumed to heaven anyway with or without the Incarnation, Crucifixion or Resurrection.

I've never, ever come across the phrase OR concept of "time travel" with respect to the IC. Whose goofy idea is *that*?

I have no idea, but it is a popular concept among lay wanna-be apologists today. The compounding issue here is they believe that the IC has already saved Mary because of her purity from sin and thus would have been assumed to heaven anyway with or without the Incarnation, Crucifixion or Resurrection.

Nope, that's false. We believe the Immaculate Conception occurred because of Christ's death and resurrection.

I've never, ever come across the phrase OR concept of "time travel" with respect to the IC. Whose goofy idea is *that*?

I have no idea, but it is a popular concept among lay wanna-be apologists today. The compounding issue here is they believe that the IC has already saved Mary because of her purity from sin and thus would have been assumed to heaven anyway with or without the Incarnation, Crucifixion or Resurrection.

Then, it seems to me, they're badly and inaccurately catechized--if "catechized" at all, that is. Who are these folks, anyway?

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

Nope, that's false. We believe the Immaculate Conception occurred because of Christ's death and resurrection.

I looked at Ineffabilis Deus and couldn't find anything that says this. It says that Mary was preserved from the stain of Original Sin by single privilege from the Father through the Holy Spirit. But there is no mention about Christ's death on the cross as the causation of the Immaculate Conception. Can you cite where this comes from? I may be looking at a less than ideal translation of Ineffabilis Deus, or perhaps what New Advent has is not the actual dogmatic constitution but rather an explanation of it and thus does not contain the original context of the teaching.

Nope, that's false. We believe the Immaculate Conception occurred because of Christ's death and resurrection.

I looked at Ineffabilis Deus and couldn't find anything that says this. It says that Mary was preserved from the stain of Original Sin by single privilege from the Father through the Holy Spirit. But there is no mention about Christ's death on the cross as the causation of the Immaculate Conception. Can you cite where this comes from? I may be looking at a less than ideal translation of Ineffabilis Deus, or perhaps what New Advent has is not the actual dogmatic constitution but rather an explanation of it and thus does not contain the original context of the teaching.

" that Mary, the most holy Mother of God, by virtue of the foreseen merits of Christ, our Lord and Redeemer, was never subject to original sin, but was completely preserved from the original taint, and hence she was redeemed in a manner more sublime" Ineffabilis Deus, Blessed Pope Pius IX

In the end my friend the Immaculate Conception, is a mystery, just because Mary was born sinless does not mean that she had no free will, or that she could go to heaven when she died without Christ being sacrificed first and being raised from the dead.

In the end my friend the Immaculate Conception, is a mystery, just because Mary was born sinless does not mean that she had no free will, or that she could go to heaven when she died without Christ being sacrificed first and being raised from the dead.

How can the Virgin be conceived immaculately without a free response of her will, and her still have free will?

It can't be said that it was ordained through God's foreknowledge of her willing response, because this would be no different than God electing those who would respond positively and damning those who would not through his foreknowledge.

Nope, that's false. We believe the Immaculate Conception occurred because of Christ's death and resurrection.

I looked at Ineffabilis Deus and couldn't find anything that says this. It says that Mary was preserved from the stain of Original Sin by single privilege from the Father through the Holy Spirit. But there is no mention about Christ's death on the cross as the causation of the Immaculate Conception. Can you cite where this comes from? I may be looking at a less than ideal translation of Ineffabilis Deus, or perhaps what New Advent has is not the actual dogmatic constitution but rather an explanation of it and thus does not contain the original context of the teaching.

" that Mary, the most holy Mother of God, by virtue of the foreseen merits of Christ, our Lord and Redeemer, was never subject to original sin, but was completely preserved from the original taint, and hence she was redeemed in a manner more sublime" Ineffabilis Deus, Blessed Pope Pius IX

In the end my friend the Immaculate Conception, is a mystery, just because Mary was born sinless does not mean that she had no free will, or that she could go to heaven when she died without Christ being sacrificed first and being raised from the dead.

But what does "merits" mean? Merits of the Sacrifice? Or merit of being God who is able to do all things? Isn't being selected as the Theotokos meritous in itself?

And you are right in your second paragraph, except that many Catholics are already going down that path. In fact, many are not even aware of St. Athanasius' teaching that they believe Jesus was able to save humanity by being merely the pure and spotless lamb offered as a Sacrifice, and some openly wonder if Mary being a pure and spotless person because of the IC could have been crucified for our sins. I know the Catholic Church does not teach this, but the preeminent understanding of the mechanics of the IC and the merit of the Sacrifice of Christ in RC theology leads some to make this false conclusion.

In the end my friend the Immaculate Conception, is a mystery, just because Mary was born sinless does not mean that she had no free will, or that she could go to heaven when she died without Christ being sacrificed first and being raised from the dead.

How can the Virgin be conceived immaculately without a free response of her will, and her still have free will?

It can't be said that it was ordained through God's foreknowledge of her willing response, because this would be no different than God electing those who would respond positively and damning those who would not through his foreknowledge.

When referring to her free will I was not referring to her as a little baby inside of her Mothers womb.

Easy, Adam and Eve were made free from sin and still had their free will. Her sinlessness was a gift from God to her that is unique just like her privelage of being the God Bearer.

When referring to her free will I was not referring to her as a little baby inside of her Mothers womb.

Easy, Adam and Eve were made free from sin and still had their free will. Her sinlessness was a gift from God to her that is unique just like her privelage of being the God Bearer.

Original sin is, according to RC, the deprivation of grace, yes? I'll use that definition in this entire post:

If the Virgin was held from original sin, then it would be appropriate to say that she was filled with God's grace upon conception (i.e. not deprived of it).If she was filled with God's grace upon conception, then it was irresistable.If it was irresistable, then she had no free will.

Her being the God-bearer was resistable. She could have rejected such a gift from God, but to say that she was conceived without original sin would be irresistable. Not analogous.

Regarding Adam and Eve, it's not analogous either. Adam and Eve were created in a state where humanity was not (yet) corrupted and deprived of grace, whereas the Virgin was. The former would just be God creating humans (in their natural state), whereas the latter is God irresistably overcoming Mary with grace upon conception (i.e. the opposite of grace's deprivation). Further, A&E's creation itself is not synonomous with Mary's conception.

If she was filled with God's grace upon conception, then it was irresistable.

It would have only been irresistable if she had been incapable of rejecting it (not rejecting receiving it, but having it and rejecting it). Protestants use the same argument against administering sacraments (baptism in particular) to infants.

It would have only been irresistable if she had been incapable of rejecting it (not rejecting receiving it, but having it and rejecting it). Protestants use the same argument against administering sacraments (baptism in particular) to infants.

I see, I hadn't considered that. Looks like my argument was wrong then.

This is the issue. While I don't see deprivation of grace and corruption of nature as needing to be mutually exclusive of each other, it becomes a problem when dogmas are pronounced based on original sin solely as deprivation of grace on an issue that should have been left as theological opinion.